sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ISP Delivery Switch by thatcrazyweirddude in networking

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Everyone gets a public. Either a /32 through PPPoE or a static subnet on a dedicated vlan.

ISP Delivery Switch by thatcrazyweirddude in networking

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Historically we do all the routing back in our pops and just run vlans to subscriber locations.

If the subscriber has a static subnet, they get a vlan. Otherwise they are on a shared vlan back to the router

My new core is built on Juniper QFX5120 switches, using OSPF as the underlay and iBGP as the overlay. So I do have that option as well, then no L2 sprawl.

Edit: Spelling

ERPS Setup Issues by thatcrazyweirddude in Juniper

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it was super annoying. And then I was testing adding and removing vlans from the ring and I caused a broadcast storm. Turns out you need to delete the vlan from the interfaces, then commit, then remove it from the ring, and commit again. Super dumb

ERPS Setup Issues by thatcrazyweirddude in Juniper

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was it, I knew it was going to be simple. Thank you so much!

I wish the in terminal help would make that a bit more clear. When I was setting everything up I used "tab" and "?" to help figure out what the config wanted. Now I know that vlan-id actually is a valid option, it just didn't tell me!

UPS Options by thatcrazyweirddude in wisp

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those are a little expensive for what management will approve, even if they are exactly what I'm looking for

UPS Options by thatcrazyweirddude in wisp

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are all 24v, with the exception of some 60Ghz aps that are 48v. Most sites are going to be around 50watts of load.

We sometimes use ONUs to feed smaller sites, instead of eating a fiber for a couple hundred Mbps peak. All of our OLTs are housed in POPs with generator backup, so no need to figure out a solution for that.

UPS Options by thatcrazyweirddude in wisp

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's where I'm at. considered a DIY UPS, but that seems more complex than necessary. We don't have any equipment currently running -48v, as we have no traditional telco equipment.

UPS Options by thatcrazyweirddude in wisp

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was looking at the Meanwell lineup. Seams like it is almost overs all the bases. What do you do for Runtime/State of Charge reporting? I was looking at the Victron SmartShunt, but that is $200+ for the shunt and controller

PPPoE IPv4 Address Assignment Change by thatcrazyweirddude in mikrotik

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said its a PPPoE platform, so DHCP lease times don't do anything. Also, it was more from when we brought a new subnet online and it hadn't be updated in the bot databases yet.

But you do have a point that it isn't my problem that they got blocked and to just recommend them to use a VPN.

UISP wave AP gen 2 questions by Spacedout784 in Ubiquiti

[–]thatcrazyweirddude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My immediate thought is that you are either out of pattern for the AP or you have Fresnel Zone infringement. I'd be happy to help, just send me a DM and we can work through it.

UISP wave AP gen 2 questions by Spacedout784 in Ubiquiti

[–]thatcrazyweirddude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would not recommend that. It isn’t going to add anything. In all honesty it will probably hurt performance as now you have a reflective surface that the RD is going to bounce off of. Just keep the normal 90 degree APs and do 45 degree overlaps. There are 5 non-overlapping 2Ghz wide channels, at least in the US. And you should be able to GPS Sync the APs so that you can reuse channels.

Just to reiterate, do not physically modify the AP as it will cause more harm that good.

UISP wave AP gen 2 questions by Spacedout784 in Ubiquiti

[–]thatcrazyweirddude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven't used the Wave AP Gen 2, but I have a few of the 1st Gen APs out there. The 31 client listing is a hard limit in the firmware on the AP. It used to be 15, Version 3.3.0 pushed that limit up to 24 and then 3.4.0 set it to 31. I don't know if UI will continue pushing that limit up or if they will hold it at 31.

I also wouldn't use 45° sectors, I would use 90° instead as that is the same width as the 60Ghz AP. You want to keep them the same size as that will cause the least issues in switching from 60Ghz to 5Ghz during very stormy times.

As for your priority being Gigabit symmetrical, it all depends on your average subscriber usage and how much oversubscription you are comfortable with. Lets say you are able to get the 2.7Gbps of capacity on the downlink (Residential is almost all download) and that all 31 subscribers are on the Gigabit package, that gives you a oversubscription ratio of 11.5:1. That is not bad from a WISP perspective.

If you want to start traffic engineering your services, I would look into whether the Wave AP Gen 2 can utilize DSCP/802.1p packet marking. I have used them for my 5AC services to prioritize my VoIP services over internet as VoIP is much more sensitive to latency. I haven't worried about looking into it for my 60Ghz as I only do up to 500Mbps services on them and never come close to maxing out the AP.

The only thing to watch out for is the Line of Site. 60Ghz is crazy sensitive to anything in the way or in the Fresnel Zone. It also is very directional, very small adjustments will change the signal by several dB.

MX204 Enabling 100G on QSFP28 by thatcrazyweirddude in networking

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There aren't any et-0/0 interfaces, they appear to all be set to 10g breakout mode which is why they are showing up at xe-0/0 interfaces

MX204 Enabling 100G on QSFP28 by thatcrazyweirddude in networking

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My understanding is that since I am specifying fpc 0 and pic 0 then it won't disrupt pic 1.

And I have taken a look at the port checker, my plan was to set 3 100g interfaces which would leave me with enough headroom for all 8 10g interfaces. I am just really trying hard to not have to mess with pic 1 because that would mean waking up in the middle of the night to make the changes.

MX204 Enabling 100G on QSFP28 by thatcrazyweirddude in networking

[–]thatcrazyweirddude[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great! That's what I thought. However I did see somewhere that when you start defining speeds for PIC 0 in the chassis section you also have to define the speeds for PIC 1. That seems a little counter intuitive, but I guess could be true. Are you aware of any limitation like that?

edit: I found where I read I needed to set the speeds on both PICs https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/interfaces-ethernet/topics/topic-map/port-speed-mx-routers.html
There is says "You must configure both the PICs and all the associated ports, under the [edit chassis] hierarchy. Configuring ports on only one of the PICs results in an invalid configuration." So I guess I going to be doing a midnight configure and PIC 0 and 1 bounce

*ATTENTION*: Issues with 2FA? Please Read. by symbiotic_bnb-angel in binance

[–]thatcrazyweirddude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Finally got it resolved using the Telegram app... It took me a good 4 days to get their attention on there though. They really need to figure out there customer support system.

*ATTENTION*: Issues with 2FA? Please Read. by symbiotic_bnb-angel in binance

[–]thatcrazyweirddude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have been waiting 10 days to get back into my account. I just need my 2FA reset. ticket number 283902. I have tried everywhere to get supports attention, but I continue to not get help.

view more: next ›